New Orleans Post-Katrina Charter Schools Foster Unhelpful Competition - US News:
'Every Kid Is Money'
Principals see dollar signs instead of students in New Orleans' post-Katrina charter schools.
This week commemorates a grim anniversary. Ten years ago, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. It wiped out the entire public school system and cleared the way for what has become the nation's first
fully charterized district. In the New Orleans Recovery School District, traditional neighborhood public schools are gone, replaced by privately run charter schools.
Compared to the pre-Katrina period, students' scores on state mandated tests are
up and dropout rates are down. Based on these numbers,
some commentators, including various Republican presidential candidates, are calling for the New Orleans model of education reform to be replicated elsewhere; however, there are important questions to be asked before any copycat efforts should be attempted.
One of these questions is explored in a
report released earlier this year, which has been making waves in the education research community. Based on an award-winning dissertation by Huriya Jabbar, the report examines how school principals navigate the competitive waters of a charterized school district. Competition is the central premise upon which a system of school choice is built; such a system assumes that popular schools will be sought out by students and parents, while unpopular schools will either have to up their games and find ways to become more appealing to their clients or go out of business. The report examines the extent to which these concerns weigh on the minds of principals and how they respond to them.
The study shows that in all but one of the 30 randomly selected New Orleans schools, school leaders did view other schools as competitors. The principals understood competing for students as synonymous with competing for taxpayer money, as each student would bring additional money from local, state and federal sources. One principal quoted in the report explained, "Every kid is money," and another noted, "Enrollment runs the budget; the budget runs the enrollment."
Though the image of a principal with dollar signs in her eyes as she looks at students may be disturbing, the most disconcerting findings in the report were that principals did not respond to these competitive pressures in ways that might be good for students.
Only one-third of the schools responded to competition by trying to improve academics or instruction. In fact, principals in the so-called "failing" schools were even less likely than those in the "non-failing" schools to focus on strengthening the academic program and student learning.
In one-third of the schools, leaders admitted "matter-of-factly" that they engaged in strategies to screen and select their students, even though such practices were not permitted and all but two of the schools were expected to enroll any student who applies and is chosen for admission through random lottery. The "creaming and cropping" strategies principals used included deliberately courting more affluent families at special invite-only open houses, counseling out families whose children "might hurt their test scores," and not filling seats left empty by students not returning to school, either because they were pushed out or because they chose not to return.
The most common response to competition reported by leaders was to direct more money and resources into marketing efforts, including advertising and hiring brand consultants.
As media pundits and politicians commemorate the 10 year anniversary of Katrina, many will point to competition and choice as the drivers of improvement in New Orleans student outcomes. Though the validity of such claims remains disputed by educational researchers, it's clear that competition inspires school leaders to make different decisions about how they allocate funds and expend their time and energy.
